Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 3rd Nov 2011 19:34 UTC, submitted by lucas_maximus
Hardware, Embedded Systems A big issue right now in the world of operating systems - especially Linux - is Microsoft's requirement that all Windows 8 machines ship with UEFI's secure boot enabled, with no requirement that OEMs implement it so users can turn it off. This has caused some concern in the Linux world, and considering Microsoft's past and current business practices and the incompetence of OEMs, that's not unwarranted. CNet's Ed Bott decided to pose the issue to OEMs. Dell stated is has plans to include the option to turn secure boot off, while HP was a bit more vague about the issue.
Thread beginning with comment 495664
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Just to show
by lucas_maximus on Thu 3rd Nov 2011 20:09 UTC in reply to "Just to show"
Member since:

+1 I would upvote you .. but I can't.

Also this comment is very interesting

It seems that once the OS is booted you cannot access UEFI.

I am interested about the negatives of UEFI can you provide me links please ... so I can Edify myself?

Edited 2011-11-03 20:10 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Just to show
by ronaldst on Fri 4th Nov 2011 01:30 in reply to "RE: Just to show"
ronaldst Member since:

I am interested about the negatives of UEFI can you provide me links please ... so I can Edify myself?

I don't have any links to give you but I'll tell you what I believe is wrong with UEFI. There was a video presention presented by the Plan9 guy Ron Minnich about CoreBoot which goes in further details.

UEFI itself is a small OS. It has it's own drivers. Which is duplicate functionality since Windows/MacOS/Linux must also provide the same drivers and functions. There are videos on Youtube where people boot up their PCs to the desktop and simply remove the BIOS chip while everything runs. And nothing crashes.

Security and costs. More code, more complex, more bugs, more space needed. UEFI does more than the current BIOS.

There are no technical reasons why a simple hardware init + payload straight to the OS couldn't be a replacement for today's BIOS.

The only reason we still have this excess layer is none other than protecting other people's IP and profits.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure someone will comment and tell me that I am wrong but those are my reasons about UEFI.

I'm not going to comment on the secureboot stuff because someone with a functioning brain knows there's no issue here. It's the usual fodder for the internet drama queens.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Just to show
by BushLin on Fri 4th Nov 2011 02:03 in reply to "RE[2]: Just to show"
BushLin Member since:

As predicted someone is writing to tell that they think you're wrong, although only on the small matter about removing BIOS chips.
I once had a bad flash and the system wouldn't boot, however I had a similar board nearby so I could boot to DOS on that, switch the *ROMS over and then force flash the BIOS image which failed previously.
Oh yeah, the point... While I'm not going to argue the merits of UEFI, what you said about removing the BIOS chip doesn't appear to prove anything as it doesn't seem any different to what was possible before.

Reply Parent Score: 1